During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized war hawks in the Republican Party while refusing to place blame on President Obama. On radio this morning, Glenn questioned Paul’s strategy and condemned Obama’s lack of leadership.

“Rand Paul doesn’t blame President Obama for the Iraq crisis,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Well, neither do I, I guess, to some degree. But [Obama] certainly didn’t help it.”

David Gregory asked Paul how he feels about comments made by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans who are criticizing Obama for his lack of foreign policy prowess. Paul refused to condemn the President, instead blaming both parties.

“And what’s going on now — I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution,” Paul said. “But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those who were for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry.”

While ISIS’s growing control of Syria and Iraq is certainly not Obama’s fault, Stu did not agree with Paul’s reasoning. Just because Obama did not support the war in Iraq, doesn’t mean he gets to ignore the crisis that is now unfolding.

“Isn’t this kind of like a part of your job, though? Whether you agreed with the war when you started, part of your job is to manage what’s going on now,” Stu said. “I don’t agree with the Department of Education, but if the education system is bad and I’m president, I’m going to be held responsible for it.”

“It’s not only Iraq,” Glenn added. “It’s Syria. It’s Egypt. It’s Tunisia. It is Libya. If the president hadn’t been so awful on all fronts, you wouldn’t have this call for a caliphate. But he has been so awful and so wrong on every single place.”

Your browser does not support iframes.

On Monday, Obama appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Not typically known for hard hitting journalism, host Mika Brzezinski asked Obama, point blank, how he feels about the growing power of ISIS, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, given the fact he infamously declared Al-Qaeda was decimated.

“It was,” Obama said of Al-Qaeda. “And — but just because something is stable two years ago or four years ago doesn’t mean that it’s stable right now. It is ultimately going to be up on the Iraqi leadership to try to pull the politics of the country back together again. In the meantime, we’ve got an organization, ISIS, that has the ability to you know, at least right now in western Iraq, cause a lot of havoc and violence.”

Given how many times the Obama Administration has fumbled on the foreign policy front, Glenn wondered why Paul chose to defend the President.

“Do you not understand how the world works at all, Mr. President? Really,” Glenn asked. “I mean, and Rand Paul doesn’t think he’s responsible for anything? Rand, is this your first day at the bakery here? Is that your first day smelling a really bad cake? What the hell is wrong with you?”

Who want’s to hear these two jokers Monday morning quarterbacking? If Obama had American troops stay in Iraq while under-supporting the effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan, these two lounge-chair critics would just as easily blame Obama for not following Bush’s draw-down and leaving Americans in Iraq to be killed.

asas

shut up Paul, your as crazy as daddy.

Timothy Wenners

Uh huh.

You say you support the troops.. Yet send them off to die against nations that have never attacked the US.

All of the mess happening today is because of morons like you, who supported going into the middle east in the first place.

Micah Lindstrom

History pretty concisely vindicates the US and fellow countries that supported the invasion. Despite not finding weapons of mass destruction (Iraqi commanders admitted to quickly moving them across the border to Syria when the invasion began), the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan was dangerous to the world, harboring any kind of Islamic terrorist groups.

You might want to ask the US troops before you try insulting someone for agreeing with sending the military off to do the job they were trained to do. Most soldiers were livid with our current president when his early presidential politics were all about ‘bring our soldiers home’ BECAUSE THEY KNEW ALL THEY FOUGHT FOR WOULD FALL APART IF THEY CAME HOME THEN. That was the perspective of the soldiers and of those who died to liberate an oppressed people (Sadam was no candy-man dictator).

Sometimes you have to go to war, and later you have to pay for it. We are paying for it. To all our lament, the middle east is falling apart because it harbors a culture of hate, inequality, and injustice masquerading as a mass religion of peace. It’s a theocracy masquerading as a republic.

It seems like it is time to get out. I would be careful about trying to mock people when you are not actually standing with history, but actually pretty firmly against it on this matter. Seriously consider whether or not you can reasonably come to the conclusion that we created this problem in the middle east, considering what the middle east is really like regardless of whether we were to intervene.

Rework Oh Ryan

It’s irrelevant what soldiers see on the ground, because their viewpoint is skewed. They only see their AO, and not the whole picture. The soldiers aren’t paying attention to the cost of the war, they are only paying attention to their role. The cost of the war is unjustified, considering that we are right back in the same situation (if not worse) than before the invasion. Also, the “moving of WMDs to Syria” is just speculative. Still, as in the beginning, no proof of it. After over a trillion dollars, we couldn’t stabilize the region, then only an oblivious idiot would think we can do the same thing over again, with different results.

grandmalovesyou

You are wrong. My son was wounded during this war. As to the cost of war; you are also wrong. Seeing your buddies get blown to bits is something you can never forget. It is more than the monetary cost.
Our soldiers guarded the things you say there was no proof of. Tons and tons of it. What they are “finding” now can never be moved; that is why it is still there and wasn’t removed before
. If you don’t know what you are talking about; perhaps you should seek some non-partison education from a soldier who was there.

Mike Nelson

Thank your son for his service, and never let him forget that people pray for him daily, either by name or anonymously, by profession, regardless the politics of the day.

Mike Nelson

Soldiers, more than anyone else, are aware of the ultimate cost of war.

We know Saddam used chems on the Kurds, and reasonable evidence exists that he used them on Iran as well. He had them, pure and simple, and the sooner guys on your side can arrive at the truth of that matter, the sooner you can find support from some on the other side by citation of things that are true. Until then you are merely a crazy voice, screaming at the sky.

The reason we haven’t achieved any military objectives in the ME is because we are attempting to use the military like it is a non-definitive political solution, rather than the political tool of last resort.

Nation building is a form of colonialism, and colonialism in the world today exists only due to the ignorance of the electorate of first world countries.

David Mclaughlin

From a soldiers point of view. Your wrong in every single sentence you wrote. Don’t think for one second we don’t or didn’t see all the things you spoke of. You speak as if we have no brain and just follow orders. You should go sign up if you can or have the balls. I want to see you come back and speak the same you do now. Ignorant

David Mclaughlin

The main result is to chop them down. Weaken them again and again as they rise. Yes that’s exactly what needs to be done again. You can never totally defeat you ignorant troll. We ” soldiers” are not as dumb as you are. We understand that the fight continues it’s never finished. Over time they rise but us bad arses don’t mind signing up to keep them below us. Sounds to me you think they should be left alone to multiply and grow as fast as us. Stupidity.

Crassus

I think I’m going to have to make up a list of cliches/rules used by Paulbot trolls in addition to the one I use for the liberal egg suckers.

The fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell haven’t been arrested and put on trial in The Hague for conspiracy against peace, waging a war of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (yet) is reprehensible.

Wallace Garrod III

Go ahead and add HILLARY CLINTON, NANCY PELOSI, JOE BIDEN and many more to the list that SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR, DOUCHE!

Mike Nelson

You would be sooo much more credible if you named someone on the left, and there are so many you could name.

BlueMN

If you or Wally can name me anyone on “the left” who was in the Bush administration, who helped plan and carry out that war, rather than people who were lied into cheerleading for it, I’ll happily add them to the list.

I have not forgotten the Democrats in the House and Senate who went along with the call to war rather than do the right thing and question the integrity of Bush/Cheney & Co.

Mike Nelson

“I have not forgotten the Democrats in the House and Senate who went along with the call to war…”

I’m glad to hear this, but why attempt to set a parameter on the Bush years? Why is 0bama not culpable, wrong, and guilty as well? “That war” is still raging, and 0 has been president for nearly 5.5 years.

Do you think that by saying the discussion must be limited to the Bush administration, that makes them the only guilty parties? By this time, do you not know that someone will call you on partisan politics when you attempt them?

Your true, blue color shines right on through in every post. Like I said, you’d be much more credible if you weren’t such an obvious partisan.

BlueMN

“0”? Is that your little nonpartisan nickname for President Obama? The nice thing about hypocrisy is you don’t need to hold youself to the same rules you hold others to, right Mike? I never claimed to be nonpartisan, I don’t see a single nonpartisan comment on this extremely partisan site, including yours. Get over it.

Obama inherited W’s war, it’s a lot easier to get into a war than get out of one and Obama did not lie us into that war either. W broke Iraq, we got stuck with the bill.

Mike Nelson

Ah! Now we’re onto something – I applaud your aggressive riposte!

What I said was that YOU would be more credible if you were less partisan – I never claimed to be non-partisan myself… although I tend toward non-partisanship commentary. The exception to that position is that I believe in republic because I love democracy. This “get over yourself” thing is one of the games (deflection and shared responsibility for one’s own behavior) that people play when they don’t want to admit that they are being called out on reasonable grounds.

Fact: I count R’s and I’s as the stinkers they are when they are stinkers. You do not do the same with D’s. You doubt me? Good – you should doubt everyone! Go look at my record, it’s open so that others can correct me when I’m wrong.

It’s not about partisanship for me… but it IS for you, and I’m glad to hear you openly admit it as such, because it should make you confront yourself as I have had to. Truth hurts, but the only thing I hate more than being wrong is STAYING wrong. On this issue (partisanship), you’re wrong because you’re willfully blind, and that means that you’re lacking in cognitive rectitude, which means you’re also missing a lot of information through dismissal of relevant events. I’m not even critical of your partisanship in my commentary… I only said you’d be more credible if you weren’t so obvious – but that struck a nerve, didn’t it?

For example:

Fact: To get out of a war on foreign soil, you LEAVE. Period. The circumstances under which that happens are up to the sitting Powers. Clinton proved that in Somalia. 0 wants us to believe he proved/is proving it in Afghanistan and Iraq (false!).

You see, I call him 0 because that’s the good he’s done for anyone in this country, it’s the number of promises he’s kept, the number of wars he’s removed us from, and it’s the state to which his policies (or Jarrett’s, depending on your perspective of who’s *really* in charge) will continue to reduce the country until s/he is stopped. W was part of this too, as was Clinton, as was GW before him. Globalists, all of them.

I hope this has been instructive for you, as talking with Gristle McThornbody has been for me in the past.

BlueMN

“I hope this has been instructive for you…” No, it was absolutely pointless. Facts are facts, and sometimes they are partisan. “You would be sooo much more credible if you insisted British and Americans were tried at Nuremberg too.” Just doesn’t wash.

You say you “tend toward non-partisanship commentary,” I say that’s BS. I don’t follow you around here but your comments tend very far to the “Right” even if you have no understanding of what that is.

This part made me laugh though. “I believe in republic because I love democracy.” You don’t even believe in the concept of “one person, one vote,” you want to give wealthy landowners more votes than poor or working class people, how can you claim to love democracy? You clearly don’t know what democracy means either. That’s where you lost all credibility with me a while back.

The “D”emocratic Party is about one person, one vote (which is LOL already, and proven so by their lack of support for voter ID laws).

Democracy (noun) – a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting or an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

How is it equal when some people are vested property owners whose value is tied to the value of that property, and others are able to vote it away from them? 1 man – 1 vote does not cover the value of the individual to the society, which, strangely, is the defining value of a socialist system, in which each member is expected to contribute in order that the whole might benefit.

Republic (noun) – a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Yes, my friend, Republic IS a refined form of democracy… but your partisan view has blinded you to that clear fact.

I think I know quite well the definitions of the words I use, and it seems equally clear that your double-posting is a temper tantrum resultant of the fact that your dogma (noun – a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted) has collided with your intellect.

… and I believe that concludes the lesson for today quite succinctly (adjective – marked by compact precise expression without wasted words).

BlueMN

“Facts are never partisan!” Yes and no. “Climate change is real.” 97% of scientists agree, a lot of Teabaggers don’t, in that case it’s falls to the side of science, i.e. “partisan” and it still remains a fact.

“1 man – 1 vote does not cover the value of the individual to the society,” Your elitist/feudalistic view is ridiculous, the fact that you still can’t see it makes it even funnier. It flies in the face of the principle that all citizens are entitled to equal legislative representation, one of the basic tenets of our democracy. And your “value of the individual to the society” theory is precariously close to a certain Central European country’s view of “useless eaters” in the 1930’s and 40’s.

Also voter ID laws have been used in the past to prevent poor and mostly black people from voting, which is basically the purpose of it today since voter fraud is actually extremely rare.

Please don’t put yourself out by posting “lessons” when you have many, many lessons to learn yourself. No temper tantrum here, just straightening you out on the facts,

BlueMN

“Fact: To get out of a war on foreign soil, you LEAVE. Period.” Incredibly naive point of view. Reduce Iraq and Afghanistan to rubble then just leave. What could possibly go wrong there? Somalia was a humanitarian effort not even close to the full scale invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then you reduce yourself to talking global conspiracy nonsense and you wonder why I don’t take you seriously when you talk about “0.”

David Mclaughlin

I support the troops ! I was one . Maybe you were too IDK. I supported going into Iraq and went. So I am a moron lmao . You ignorant troll let me tell you why I support it and still do. Every so often as those whack jobs get big you have to chop them down see. We have a lame system and sometimes we have to make every excuse to get the O.K to go get the job done. I support and still do and I’d go over again and do the same. While you sit in your chair.

If ” Troops “aren’t wanting to do the job asked. Then don’t sign up.

Look in the mirror before calling people morons. We all have our own views but I can tell you 90% of our military would slap the white off you for calling us morons and we’d not mind a bit to drop you off in Iraq and see how you manage on your own lmao

Michael DeVita

Glenn, stop acting like a wuss.

Max Lightning

We can’t blame all of this on Obama, just like how we can’t blame Gun control all on Obama. The mom’s against gun control, are also to blame for it, just like those who support the restart of the Iraq war.

Anonymous

It’s Bushes fault for getting us into a war with an enemy that never attacked the USA to begin with, and It’s Obummer fault for pulling out our troops to early.

People, think about this for a moment please: When was Iraq at most stable but when Sadam was in charge? Of course this makes the next logical question, but what type of ruler was Sadam? I say yes, he was really bad and a terrorist, so on and so forth, however what is going to be in charge now? Not saints or rather I say worst than Sadam was, not to mention no stability at all, no weapons of mass destruction either. These people do not like any outsiders, however they need the rest of the world to sell their oil, kind of like Saddam and Gomorra was with the salt. My point is on who to blame is the people of Saudi Arabia (Sunnis) and the Iranians (Shi’ites) and their interest in controlling the oil. Here is what I think is the only answer perhaps for these countries; they only want to do what is best for their people, country boundaries mean nothing to them, oil and money and such does mean a lot and why not? When thinking about a solution we really need to leave out our own personal issues when considering what is best for the region, think more like them. This is why I think we should secure the area by not letting these people spread this hate into other countries than their own and let them fight it out; when they are finished then we can talk about oil, God bless.

JC in TN

Obama may not be at fault for al Maliki’s problems, but he certainly bears some of the responsibility for ISIL’s (ISIS?) rise to prominence – with his support of rebellion against the government of Syria – including training and arming members of ISIL.

Anonymous

Nothing seems to be working. How about trying something that has not been tried: remove all American troops, American oil refinery workers, engineers. Bring them home to build an energy producing USA?

Crassus

Does Pat Grey still think that Dandy Randy is the new GOP Jesus? At least Glenn’s mind is still working in regards to the Dandy One.

Kevin Johnson

And most Beck supporters are ignorant to the fact that Reagan/Rumsfeld gave Saddam his WMDs to begin with….you see…the USA creates it’s Frankensteins and enemies of terror. Y’all keep getting caught up in whack religious stuff when it’s the U.S. GOVT and the SAUDIS pulling the strings!

So I should listen to what you say about a news organization that is known for lying its ass off. Your the whacked out idiot. Please keep your head up your ass.

Anonymous

I thought they never found WMD in Iraq. Isn’t that one reason everyone hated Bush?

Anonymous

Rand Paul/Ben Carson 2016!!!

Phatcow07

AGREED!!!!!!!!!

grandmalovesyou

Alan West/Ben Carson

Ray Bois

no way. Ben Carson needs to be first name on that ticket.

Anonymous

Let’s look at two earlier actions to be added to Rand Paul’s resume. He said it would be ok to use a drone on an American citizen on US soil without due process. He backed Mitch THE B**ch of the establishment RHINO Party for reelection. Is this the guy we want to consider for President? I don’t think so!

Roger Wallace

Isis has said that they want to go to Bagdad, then to Jerusalem. And if Obama won’t put a few thousand ground troops over there to restore Iraq and Syria at this time, now. Then I am pretty sure Israel will do what Obama won’t do. Therefore, we will no doubt have a unwanted war in the middle east because of Obama in my opinion. And it is because Israel isn’t going to just set back and let American military equipment from Iraq be used against Jerusalem in any way at all. And if I were in Israel’s shoes, that is what I would do if they came against Jerusalem.

Rework Oh Ryan

Rand is correct. The neo-cons don’t want to admit they screwed up, so they just point the finger at Obama. Remember, when you point the finger at someone else, there are 3 other fingers pointing back at you.

http://www.politecs.com/ PoliTecs

When Beck went down this road it was like watching a drunk who railed against the “party system” jump right back on the barstool and down 6 shots of STUPID alliance to the Liber’s.

I have been warning via posts like this, Blog articles, Tea Party speaches, etc. that the Libertarian Party is JUST ANOTHER PARTY. Looking for the same thing the other two are – POWER AND CONTROL. Liber’s have their own version of US history and it frighteningly aligns more with todays radical left than ANY Conservative or common sense founding approach to borders, foreign policy, et al!
As I have been saying; Liber’s and modern Leftists (Statists) are similar in one manor – EXTREEMISM.
(Don’t you Liber’s start reply with stupidity. I am talking about the baseline Liber – not the average Joe.)
Beck, WAKE UP! You are being asked to drink again and you are nearly drunk!

Our government has the biggest part of being responsible in this current trouble in Iraq because anyone knows a government needs civil rights of some sort that effectively represents a whole country‘s citizens. We as a government, when we were militarily in Iraq, we knew this! Yet, we stopped short of that and we let Iraq make a government that was quite short on civil rights for it‘s citizens, therefore it is no wonder why as to what is happening in Iraq at this time. Now, until that issue is resolved properly, Iraq will continue to be at odds inside of itself forever. The reason I say all of this, is that the national news seems not to be saying much about the Iraqi people in the land where Isis has conquered. Many of those people has welcomed ISIS and some of those Iraqi people feel that they will now have a governing voice in their government with Isis in control.

Anonymous

This is what happens when a rank amateur is put into high public office. Instead of working with the Iraq government Barack Obama abruptly pulled the troops out two years ago. Complete failure is the result. The Al Qaeda sure has Barack Obama on the run as he meekly surrenders and retreats again ! And then, in order to compound this mistake he abruptly releases five of the top Taliban leaders and lets them go their merry way !

Anonymous

Obama followed the exit timeline set up by Bush and tried to leave the troops in Iraq longer. If we would have stayed, it would have been an act of war against the new government we help set up.

They should have never been there in the first place, so they could not have possibly left too soon.

Anonymous

Bush left only suggestions to the incoming President about timelines to withdraw the troops. He DID NOT specify a fixed date as to when these troops should pack up and move out of Iraq. THAT decision is made by one man only,..the incoming President, Barack Obama. Iraq had a stable government when Bush left office. We are now watching the direct results of Barack Obama’s “foreign-policy.” Total disaster and a “perfect example,” of someone who has “zero-ability” to run the American-military.

Robrigo

“Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.” – Ronald Reagan

Rand Paul and Ronald Reagan agree.

Anonymous

Well duh. Of course those who started the Iraq war on false pretenses are to blame for the resultant mess.

Anonymous

Just watched video tapes of Bill and Hillary Clinton back in “98.” Both of them stated outright that Saddam Hussien had W.M.D. Ms. Albright said exactly the same thing.

So Nee

Liberty is an adaptation to our own ignorance regarding much of the knowledge we make use of each day and the uncertainty associated with future events and circumstances.

texastruthtweet

Is he selling out?

Flex Rockhard

I’m done with him.

David Mclaughlin

Paul should go buy Hillary’s book and help her climb out of poverty.

Bobo Rodriguez

I’m glad the Senator did not criticize the junior president from Illinois. Nothing to be gained, politically speaking, beating a dead horse. Obama is done. The Senator, by not criticizing the junior president, will attract independent voters. It’s all about winning in 2016. To steal a line from hillary, “what difference does it make?”

Pat

There sure is a lot of gray sometimes. I do not subscribe to the neo-con view of “spreading democracy”-which was and is George W’s philosophy–but I also don’t believe in not fighting to wn a war. And regardless of blame, it is foolish to announce an end date, and just as foolish to leave early. We did both.

How would you react to a robber who announced: “If you don’t hand over your money in 10 seconds, I’m leaving”? Stupid, no?

small mountain

There is enough blame to tar and feather every Democrat and Republican politician for the last 15 years. Unfortunately for our country the pant loads on both sides of Congress and in Washington Think Tanks apparently have never read the Rules for a Gunfight. Virtually all common soldiers and Marines know them by heart. Here are a few that our political whiz-kids missed.

#12. Have a plan.

#13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.

#20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

#21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

#32 Before you quit the fight, make sure that the fight is over.

Anonymous

THANK YOU, RAND. I AM NOT TEA PARTIER BUT ON THIS ISSUE YOU ARE CARRYING THE TRUE INTEGRITY OF A CONSERVATIVE.

Roger Wallace

Today, the 23rd. One of the Israeli news organizations is reporting that America and the UK knew months ago that Iraq was going to be invaded by ISIS.

landofaahs

I blame the culture that has infected DC since WW1 where we seemed to just be compelled to be the world’s policeman. This crap started long ago and the only question is when and who will stop it.

That what kills me about you lot 1 minute you love Rand Paul, then he says something you don’t agree with him and then you are all like I never trusted him in the 1st place.

ken.

no one can fix the middle east, it’s a lost cause! they hate anyone who is not muslim, they hate anyone who is not the same kind of muslim as they are, even though the differences are very small. if any country attacks us then we shock and awe their government and military infrastructure out of existence. no ground troops, no nation rebuilding. anytime, anywhere we find terrorist groups we do the same.

I always seem to have mix opinions on Iraq, I could do a 5000 page book on Iraq going back to the Iraq, Iran civil war, back in the 80’s. Then of course the first war in Iraq, which was hugely successfull, then you had Clinton dropping bombs on Iraq all the time for breaking the air embargo. George W Bush becomes president of the United States and after 9/11 ties them into it. The only thing I thought, was where was the evidence, they had no evidence at all for wmd’s and no evidence to suggest that they were a part of 9/11.

Who gets the blame for Iraq and a rising terrorist group maybe Bush who couldn’t find much of a reason to go war against them to begin with.

Dam I wrote a thesis again.

Anonymous

Until the only ROE (rules of engagement) is kill the enemy, we should stay out of wars. Our military is not a world police force. It is trained to do one thing – destroy our enemies. Rules in war, that is a joke. It’s all about victory. If we are not willing to do what it takes to win, we should stay out of the war. Stop court martialing our servicemen and women because some terrorist is upset over getting punched. You’ll see the world bullies (aka: terrorists) back off fast when they find out we are going to destroy them without a second thought or glance.